Posts by LaH@mastodon.host
(DIR) Post #2813747 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-09T22:40:50Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@ivesen @starbreaker @kaniini Not even Kaniini could do it unless they did bad shit. I am worried that the copyright mobsters get the power to shut down any website with user generated content thou... That shit will be abused.
(DIR) Post #2827630 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-10T09:12:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kaniini 0. Newer ever let a reply go to more people then the original toot. IE, if it not public - send reply only to original instance.The instances can implement useful stuff like G+ like circles. Follower only is broken as concept.
(DIR) Post #2827631 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-10T09:23:43Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kaniini And rename delete to unpublish in the UI. Giving the users the bare idea they *can* delete stuff they posted on the internet is misleading as best, fraud at worst.
(DIR) Post #2827678 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-10T09:27:17Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@kaniini and users can take screen-shots, save to disc. standalone clients can have copies even if instances are perfect.
(DIR) Post #2861860 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-11T10:46:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Wolf480pl @gled @Ajz On top of everything else - ubuntus startup was pretty nice.
(DIR) Post #3042151 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-16T19:35:27Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@nosleep Nothing new - people have always given too much credit to the younger generation.
(DIR) Post #3042229 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-16T19:40:21Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@nosleep That too. But it's not like any of that shit in clip collection is bad 😃
(DIR) Post #3076910 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-17T20:03:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kaniini But what problem do it solve?instances can still just silently not delete stuff.clients can just silently not delete stuff.users can still take screen shots and save to disk.I can only see it provide a more convincing and even more dangerous illusion. At a cost on top of that.
(DIR) Post #3077182 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-17T20:14:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kaniini I read it and deniability is a slightly more valid concern. But those keeping copies will be crooks, cops, spooks and journalists. Don't think deniability will work. Courts still accept screen shot of IP addresses as proof from copyright trolls with tons of documented abuse. The fact that message can be spoofed by compromised instances probably add more deniability.
(DIR) Post #3077378 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-17T20:21:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kaniini Pleroma seams to do some relaying. But in general, don't toot go from user a -> instance A -> instance B -> user b. Won't we in any case have to trust instance A and B.Sans real end to end security in the clients. But then deniability is harder.
(DIR) Post #3078421 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-17T21:01:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kaniini Users running there own instances is the main reason I dislike capability URIs. Now You need a IP with incoming access, a domain name and certificate to run an AP instance. That exclude most users. VPS add one more actor to trust.My plan is users running an AP instance *on there own* computer. Login on a proxie server with client credentials but talking server to server AP. The proxy server only queue incoming messages and cache the latest outgoing objects. Everything else is only available when the users AP server are connected. Witch may be sporadic and connections in the other direction might be impossible. If already delivered messages get deleted because the users instance is offline it would be annoying. If we have to *ask* for that functionality (witch I think You hinted at somewhere) it OK I guess.
(DIR) Post #3078839 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-17T21:17:18Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kaniini Do I get it right if the proxy don't have a capability url for 'proxie users' they work but might not get all messages?Some might be able to have them if the proxy can connect to them and they are up all the time. But some wont.But assuming user run instances to have high accessibility is a bit optimistic under all circumstances.
(DIR) Post #3079200 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-17T21:33:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kaniini When are capability URIs to be used? If it to check whether You can reply to or boost a toot it's no big issue.But if it's used every time a user view a message, already delivered messages will disappear when an there instance is down - that is annoying as hell. And then they might need to be re-fetched taking that instance down again... etc.
(DIR) Post #3079419 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-17T21:40:42Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kaniini Is federated transactions basically "relayed delivery"?
(DIR) Post #3079520 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-17T21:44:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kaniini So if a user don't have a capability URI it basically mean that messages need to be delivered/fetched from the originating instance directly?Seams OK actually. And can probably coexist with alternative forms of relaying.
(DIR) Post #3097604 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-18T10:57:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kaniini @maple @KitRedgrave @trysdyn I'm blaming nether the protocol or the implementations for this. Public means public. If it's available anonymous over the whole internet how could it be blocked from one particular instance? That a weird idea.I don't know about pleroma, but the problem with mastodon is that private posting options sucks and leak messages.
(DIR) Post #3098067 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-18T11:24:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kaniini @maple @KitRedgrave @trysdyn blocking direct access is making it a bit harder, but it's still public on the internet.Topology awareness is both a good and a bad. Is not what a instance can work out from it's users follower and following collections sufficient?Slightly related, the fact that follower and following collections are public by default (in mastodon at least) is a bad, I'm not sure they should be allowed to even as an option. It's *far* to easy now to collect social graphs.
(DIR) Post #3236101 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-22T00:40:54Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@lynnesbian @garfiald If A is on instance aB on instance bC on instance cInstance C can't know user a block user b, because blocks are not federated for privacy reason. Also, if all instances need to know all instances user blocks we can kiss small instances goodbye.So this is a really hard one.
(DIR) Post #3343267 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-25T00:45:13Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@_ @kurisu Just replyguying "hot" (if You need that) and that it works here (mastodon.host).
(DIR) Post #3343556 by LaH@mastodon.host
2019-01-25T00:54:14Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@DetectiveHyde Nahh, I'm poly.